I am fully awake and think you are asleep in a fantasy land. Do you think that ZTE wants to make no profit? Do you think Sammy wants to make no profit? Do you think HTC wants not to make a profit? Do you think MMI, LG and SE are happy with their associated handset devisions in the red?
Even Google has claimed they see an upside of $10/handset/year profit from Android. Get to a billion users and that is some real money at 10,000,000,000/year. Google sold the Android OHA on a value added potential for carriers and handset makers to open additional revenue streams.
Only someone dreaming in fantasy land would even begin to make the statement "that doesn't mean that Android was meant to be profitable". My response was fully, the argument is simply crazy and YES Android is meant to make a profit.
Still here?
Nor ZTE, nor Samsung, nor HTC own Android. So they're cancelled out for making Android profitable. They are making a profit thanks to Android.
Google makes an indirect profit thnaks to Android through a higher ARPU by being able to show more adds and to generate more clicks.
You lost any chance of having an intelligent exchange with the other members on an Apple fan site many posts ago. If you had a valid point at one time, it's been lost in the later ramblings. Insults and personal attacks do nothing but get you ignored. Now you're just leaving the impression of being immature.
You lost any chance of having an intelligent exchange with the other members on an Apple fan site many posts ago. If you had a valid point at one time, it's been lost in the later ramblings. Insults and personal attacks do nothing but get you ignored. Now you're just leaving the impression of being immature.
"The iPhone has been a phenomenal success story for Apple and a watershed product for the market," Canalys Vice President and Principal Analyst Chris Jones said. "It's an impressive success story, given that Apple has only been in the smart phone market for four years.
The success of the many different versions of the iPhone has been amazing. But given the huge lead of Android, I question whether Apple's "a few sizes fit all" approach is the best way to go.
Now I'm going to ask you, oh wise one, a trick question .... if you ran a company and could choose to "lead in one category only", which would you choose .... market share or profits ..... think carefully .... ouch.
But for buyers, market share is a good thing to jump into, while contributing to outsized profits does not directly give any benefits.
Its kind of like a sports fan bragging that even though his team wins 30% less games, he is happy because the ticket prices are higher than at any other stadium and the owners are getting richer faster than the champ's owners.
But for buyers, market share is a good thing to jump into, while contributing to outsized profits does not directly give any benefits.
Its kind of like a sports fan bragging that even though his team wins 30% less games, he is happy because the ticket prices are higher than at any other stadium and the owners are getting richer faster than the champ's owners.
Neither one of those are true.
1) From the consumer's PoV its install base that needs to be considered, not market share as that is merely a percentage of the market and says nothing about the ecosystem into which you are buying. For example, if Android has a 100% market share but there are only 50 unit sales per year there is no ecosystem. Or, if Android had 10% market share but there were 1 billion unit sales per year there is a considerable ecosystem regardless of who has the highest share.
2) By buying a phone from a company that can use economy of scale and other efficiencies to turn a profit you, as a consumer, buy into a higher likelihood of buying a better device with includes, but is not limited to, better customer support if there is an issue with your device. An example of Apple's success benefiting the consumer above and beyond what is expected is iCloud's integration with iOS and Mac OS X for syncing, backing up, and all the associated services. Another example are the new services from iTunes Store that were negotiated.
3) The customer shouldn't care about market share or how much a company profits from a product they are selling, but how much utility is gained by the purchase of the product.
What buyers are you talking about ? product ? stock ? what ?
Product buyers. Stock buyers are owners of the company, and as such, ARE the company.
The buyer of a sports team cares only about ROI. The sports fans care about other things. Few brag that their team's owners are getting rich more quickly than the owners of the champions.
"Yeah, the other team wins more than twice as many games and has more fans and is consistently pulling ahead, but I root for my team because it makes its owners the richest." Naw. Not usually in sports.
How about TV? "I like that actor because he gets paid a lot more per episode than anyone else."
Cars? "Well, even though that car is a bit better and costs a lot less, I bought my car based upon which company had the highest margins. "
Product buyers. Stock buyers are owners of the company, and as such, ARE the company.
The buyer of a sports team cares only about ROI. The sports fans care about other things. Few brag that their team's owners are getting rich more quickly than the owners of the champions.
"Yeah, the other team wins more than twice as many games and has more fans and is consistently pulling ahead, but I root for my team because it makes its owners the richest." Naw. Not usually in sports.
How about TV? "I like that actor because he gets paid a lot more per episode than anyone else."
Cars? "Well, even though that car is a bit better and costs a lot less, I bought my car based upon which company had the highest margins. "
Buyers and sellers have different interests.
It was a nice try at an analogy but in the end it's a fail.
To view this as a sport you'd have to consider Apple as the team with the highest win rate... but, if you add together all the wins of the other teams then of course the number will be higher.
It was a nice try at an analogy but in the end it's a fail.
To view this as a sport you'd have to consider Apple as the team with the highest win rate... but, if you add together all the wins of the other teams then of course the number will be higher.
There's your analogy made right.
Let's wait the day that Samsung or any other player will sell more smartphones than Apple in a single quarter. I wonder what kind of lame excuse you'll find.
Hint: "they sold more versions of a smartphones than Apple" might work. Well, I suppose you'll come up with another bright insight.
Really, such a fine brand as Apple doesn't deserve the idiots that you are
It was a nice try at an analogy but in the end it's a fail.
To view this as a sport you'd have to consider Apple as the team with the highest win rate... but, if you add together all the wins of the other teams then of course the number will be higher.
There's your analogy made right.
Analogies often fail to prove a point. Usually too many variables. I really try to avoid them.
Comments
I am fully awake and think you are asleep in a fantasy land. Do you think that ZTE wants to make no profit? Do you think Sammy wants to make no profit? Do you think HTC wants not to make a profit? Do you think MMI, LG and SE are happy with their associated handset devisions in the red?
Even Google has claimed they see an upside of $10/handset/year profit from Android. Get to a billion users and that is some real money at 10,000,000,000/year. Google sold the Android OHA on a value added potential for carriers and handset makers to open additional revenue streams.
Only someone dreaming in fantasy land would even begin to make the statement "that doesn't mean that Android was meant to be profitable". My response was fully, the argument is simply crazy and YES Android is meant to make a profit.
Still here?
Nor ZTE, nor Samsung, nor HTC own Android. So they're cancelled out for making Android profitable. They are making a profit thanks to Android.
Google makes an indirect profit thnaks to Android through a higher ARPU by being able to show more adds and to generate more clicks.
Not you.
No, of course not.
In fact, the slide of the USD made you wealthier.
I've tried to, but I can't bear to talk to idiots any more.
Sleep tight with the idea that, in fact, loosing market share to Android is actually a good thing.
Well, little guys. That's it for me today.
I've tried to, but I can't bear to talk to idiots any more.
Sleep tight with the idea that, in fact, loosing market share to Android is actually a good thing.
After being disproven in post after post.
After being disproven in post after post.
... and not knowing how to spell "losing".
You lost any chance of having an intelligent exchange with the other members on an Apple fan site many posts ago. If you had a valid point at one time, it's been lost in the later ramblings. Insults and personal attacks do nothing but get you ignored. Now you're just leaving the impression of being immature.
Cgrisar,
You lost any chance of having an intelligent exchange with the other members on an Apple fan site many posts ago. If you had a valid point at one time, it's been lost in the later ramblings. Insults and personal attacks do nothing but get you ignored. Now you're just leaving the impression of being immature.
Did he ever have a valid point?
How do you call a situation when you're in debt, no reserves in capital and burning cash?
Hey, fine by me. If you want me to say they never went broke, here you have it: They never "went broke".
Again, I'm perfectly OK with it. I made my point, whilst you, euh, well you didn't.
You're OK with making up blatant lies?
Apple was NEVER in a position where they had no capital reserves. At their worst, they had close to a billion dollars in the bank.
What is it with you Apple-haters that makes you fabricate nonsense like that?
Well, little guys. That's it for me today.
I've tried to, but I can't bear to talk to idiots any more.
Easy to fix - just stop talking to yourself.
"The iPhone has been a phenomenal success story for Apple and a watershed product for the market," Canalys Vice President and Principal Analyst Chris Jones said. "It's an impressive success story, given that Apple has only been in the smart phone market for four years.
The success of the many different versions of the iPhone has been amazing. But given the huge lead of Android, I question whether Apple's "a few sizes fit all" approach is the best way to go.
Now I'm going to ask you, oh wise one, a trick question .... if you ran a company and could choose to "lead in one category only", which would you choose .... market share or profits ..... think carefully .... ouch.
But for buyers, market share is a good thing to jump into, while contributing to outsized profits does not directly give any benefits.
Its kind of like a sports fan bragging that even though his team wins 30% less games, he is happy because the ticket prices are higher than at any other stadium and the owners are getting richer faster than the champ's owners.
But for buyers, market share is a good thing to jump into, while contributing to outsized profits does not directly give any benefits.
Its kind of like a sports fan bragging that even though his team wins 30% less games, he is happy because the ticket prices are higher than at any other stadium and the owners are getting richer faster than the champ's owners.
Neither one of those are true.
1) From the consumer's PoV its install base that needs to be considered, not market share as that is merely a percentage of the market and says nothing about the ecosystem into which you are buying. For example, if Android has a 100% market share but there are only 50 unit sales per year there is no ecosystem. Or, if Android had 10% market share but there were 1 billion unit sales per year there is a considerable ecosystem regardless of who has the highest share.
2) By buying a phone from a company that can use economy of scale and other efficiencies to turn a profit you, as a consumer, buy into a higher likelihood of buying a better device with includes, but is not limited to, better customer support if there is an issue with your device. An example of Apple's success benefiting the consumer above and beyond what is expected is iCloud's integration with iOS and Mac OS X for syncing, backing up, and all the associated services. Another example are the new services from iTunes Store that were negotiated.
3) The customer shouldn't care about market share or how much a company profits from a product they are selling, but how much utility is gained by the purchase of the product.
But for buyers, market share is a good thing to jump into, while contributing to outsized profits does not directly give any benefits.
What buyers are you talking about ? product ? stock ? what ?
I can't believe that you guys all got sucked into that blatant trollfest. What were you thinking?
Slow day...
What buyers are you talking about ? product ? stock ? what ?
Product buyers. Stock buyers are owners of the company, and as such, ARE the company.
The buyer of a sports team cares only about ROI. The sports fans care about other things. Few brag that their team's owners are getting rich more quickly than the owners of the champions.
"Yeah, the other team wins more than twice as many games and has more fans and is consistently pulling ahead, but I root for my team because it makes its owners the richest." Naw. Not usually in sports.
How about TV? "I like that actor because he gets paid a lot more per episode than anyone else."
Cars? "Well, even though that car is a bit better and costs a lot less, I bought my car based upon which company had the highest margins. "
Buyers and sellers have different interests.
I can't believe that you guys all got sucked into that blatant trollfest. What were you thinking?
thanks for the kudos!
But really, with such idiots, I don't deserve all the credit
Product buyers. Stock buyers are owners of the company, and as such, ARE the company.
The buyer of a sports team cares only about ROI. The sports fans care about other things. Few brag that their team's owners are getting rich more quickly than the owners of the champions.
"Yeah, the other team wins more than twice as many games and has more fans and is consistently pulling ahead, but I root for my team because it makes its owners the richest." Naw. Not usually in sports.
How about TV? "I like that actor because he gets paid a lot more per episode than anyone else."
Cars? "Well, even though that car is a bit better and costs a lot less, I bought my car based upon which company had the highest margins. "
Buyers and sellers have different interests.
It was a nice try at an analogy but in the end it's a fail.
To view this as a sport you'd have to consider Apple as the team with the highest win rate... but, if you add together all the wins of the other teams then of course the number will be higher.
There's your analogy made right.
It was a nice try at an analogy but in the end it's a fail.
To view this as a sport you'd have to consider Apple as the team with the highest win rate... but, if you add together all the wins of the other teams then of course the number will be higher.
There's your analogy made right.
Let's wait the day that Samsung or any other player will sell more smartphones than Apple in a single quarter. I wonder what kind of lame excuse you'll find.
Hint: "they sold more versions of a smartphones than Apple" might work. Well, I suppose you'll come up with another bright insight.
Really, such a fine brand as Apple doesn't deserve the idiots that you are
... and not knowing how to spell "losing".
Now, if only I had a $ for each time "losing" was misspelt on this forum...
It was a nice try at an analogy but in the end it's a fail.
To view this as a sport you'd have to consider Apple as the team with the highest win rate... but, if you add together all the wins of the other teams then of course the number will be higher.
There's your analogy made right.
Analogies often fail to prove a point. Usually too many variables. I really try to avoid them.